Sharma vs Anjali

APPELLANT is a broker dealing in shares and units. Respondent purchased various shares and units of UTI from the appellant for an amount of Rs. 21,837. Units of UTI when sent to the UTI were returned as bad delivery and in spite of several complaints lodged by the respondent with the appellant for return of good shares and units, the appellant did not pay heed and on account of deficiency in service has been directed, vide impugned order dated 28.9.2001, to pay a sum of Rs. 21,837 along with interest @ 12% from the date of lodging of the complaint till its realisation and compensation and cost of Rs. 2,000.

THROUGH this appeal the appellant has assailed the impugned order on multifarious grounds. Firstly that the respondent is not a consumer, secondly that the complaint has not been filed before the appropriate forum and thirdly that the respondent has concealed material facts and has filed the complaint with mala fide intention and to harass the appellant as respondent failed to furnish bank clearance certificate, income tax clearance and other documents. In our view none of the contentions raised by the appellant has substance. The entire transaction took place at Delhi and, therefore, the District Forum at Delhi had the territorial jurisdiction. The nature of service provided by the broker dealing in shares and units to its consumer falls within the ''services'' defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act as these services are provided against consideration and are with regard to financial matters.

Once the sum of Rs. 21,837 was accepted and the shares and units were provided by the appellant the presumption was that the units and the shares were good shares and they were transferable in the name of the consumer. Return of the units by the UTI being bad delivery amounts to unfair trade practice and failure of the appellant in not redressing the grievance of the respondent in spite of several requests and letters amounts to deficiency in service which means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

HOWEVER, in our view, the award of interest @ 12% was not permissible as provision of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act authorise the District Forum to award compensation for the loss or injury suffered by the OP. Until and unless there is a term of contract between the parties for awarding interest the interest should not be awarded. In the result, we partly allow the appeal by maintaining the direction to pay a sum of Rs. 21,837, the amount received by the appellant towards shares and units from the respondent and also pay Rs. 2,000 towards cost of litigation and compensation.

APPEAL is disposed of in above terms. Fdr/Bank Guarantee, if any, filed by the appellant be returned after completion of due formalities. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal partly allowed.